| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2006 07:31:45 AM |
| Object: |
Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
02 Apr 2006 10:21:12 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the "species
concept" when applied to viruses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Bla" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
04 Apr 2006 01:31:17 PM |
|
|
"Tim K." <timkozz@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:IZRXf.119429$g47.41457@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the
"species
concept" when applied to viruses.
I see your point. speciation in the animal/plant area has definitions which
cannot apply to viruses as they are not truly alive. try this link however;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_on_Taxonomy_of_Viruses
bla
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
03 Apr 2006 09:42:59 PM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the "species
concept" when applied to viruses.
So how do you define species in viruses?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
05 Apr 2006 04:07:13 PM |
|
|
On 3 Apr 2006 19:42:59 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote
in alt.atheism
Tim K. wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the "species
concept" when applied to viruses.
So how do you define species in viruses?
RCC, JW, Moron, Methodist, Assembly, Baptist, S. Bap., Lutheran, Shia,
Sunni
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Nunnely" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
05 Apr 2006 11:17:48 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:99c832185edt7jrj6v6jlq5io8mt0qicp8@4ax.com...
On 3 Apr 2006 19:42:59 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote
in alt.atheism
Tim K. wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the
"species
concept" when applied to viruses.
So how do you define species in viruses?
RCC, JW, Moron, Methodist, Assembly, Baptist, S. Bap., Lutheran, Shia,
Sunni
===============
The above sounds like parasites to me...... ;-)
--
Alice in Watchtowerland....
Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971 ed., p. 1061
"While malicious lying is definitely condemned in
the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under
obligation to divulge truthful information to people
who are not entitled to it." *WHO DECIDES?*
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
http://www.intrex.net/talley/list7_13.html
So many sheep, so much fleecing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
06 Apr 2006 12:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:17:48 -0500, "R. Nunnely" <Riv543@noknot.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:99c832185edt7jrj6v6jlq5io8mt0qicp8@4ax.com...
On 3 Apr 2006 19:42:59 -0700, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote
in alt.atheism
Tim K. wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the
"species
concept" when applied to viruses.
So how do you define species in viruses?
RCC, JW, Moron, Methodist, Assembly, Baptist, S. Bap., Lutheran, Shia,
Sunni
===============
The above sounds like parasites to me...... ;-)
They're that too. :)
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
02 Apr 2006 11:47:40 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1143981105.109033.295080@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm
Budikka
Interesting, and scary.
I've got to quibble over the verb though - I just can't accept the "species
concept" when applied to viruses.
False! God created just *two* copies of of H5N1 and they were fed on the Ark and released afterwards.
(I know, I know, viruses are not male or female, but I doubt that Noah and his happy band knew that)
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Bla" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
02 Apr 2006 08:12:04 PM |
|
|
False! God created just *two* copies of of H5N1 and they were fed on the
Ark and released afterwards.
(I know, I know, viruses are not male or female, but I doubt that Noah and
his happy band knew that)
Fed a virus? viruses aren't alive. They don't eat, they don't excrete.
Viruses are just intracellular "machines". They don't even have the
ribosomes to synthesize their own proteins, they have to use the parasitized
cell to do that.
By the way, how is a genetically distinct second strain of h5n1 flu
"macroevolution". The second strain is not spoken of as having any trait
which improves it's survival over the more common. And, even if it did this
would be MICROevolution (adaptation).
bla
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
03 Apr 2006 09:42:02 PM |
|
|
Mr. Bla wrote:
False! God created just *two* copies of of H5N1 and they were fed on the
Ark and released afterwards.
(I know, I know, viruses are not male or female, but I doubt that Noah and
his happy band knew that)
Fed a virus? viruses aren't alive. They don't eat, they don't excrete.
Viruses are just intracellular "machines". They don't even have the
ribosomes to synthesize their own proteins, they have to use the parasitized
cell to do that.
By the way, how is a genetically distinct second strain of h5n1 flu
"macroevolution". The second strain is not spoken of as having any trait
which improves it's survival over the more common. And, even if it did this
would be MICROevolution (adaptation).
bla
This is. afaics, a new species. Speciation is macroevolution. Unless
you have some scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Bla" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
04 Apr 2006 01:26:00 PM |
|
|
This is. afaics, a new species. Speciation is macroevolution. Unless
you have some scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.
Budikka
WHAAAAT?
This is afaics? as far as YOU CAN SEE! And you are the final authority? You
"see" wrong. This is not a new species, not as far as ANYONE can see. try
this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_on_Taxonomy_of_Viruses
New Rule 3.21. A virus species is defined as a cluster of related viruses,
that occupies a particular ecological niche, and the members of which are so
similar that it is best for them all to have the same name.
are these 2 variants within a cluster or related viruses?(yes), do they
occupy the same ecological niche?(yes) are they so similar (they are
functionally identical) that it is best for them to have the same name?(yes)
is this ultimately the same virus within the same niche causing the same
symptoms in the same animals by using the same genes and the same
proteins(yes)
if so then these 2 variants are ONE VIRAL SPECIES.
So it appears those who are tasked with viral taxonomy are not that
concerned about asfaics.
Humans (homo sapiens) come in various color morphs. I am Caucasian, there
are others who are of African lineage. They produce more melanin in their
skin than I do, and this affects them phenotypically. Are they a different
species mien fuehrer? No, we are color morphs. That's all. We can interbreed
with fertile offspring, we can donate tissue to each other. we function
virtually identical to each other despite this minor GENETIC VARIATION. Is
it speciation as far as you know? No it isn't, it's a minor color morph
that's all.
At this point you need to acknowledge the fact that you are either woefully
ignorant of the basics of virology/genetics, or you are just being deceptive
and hoping no one calls your bluff. This type of behavior is not acceptable
in the scientific community regardless of someone's beliefs or motives and
you should be ashamed of yourself.
When a Christian is technically wrong or deceptive when trying to convince
someone of God's existence he is sinning, however his motives may be pure,
if poorly played out. But you are using intellectual ineptitude/deception
for what motive? So we can be enlightened......like you! so we should all
smarten up and be wrong!
Bla
P.S. there are such things as intellectually honest Christians. You may not
wish to believe this but I can assure you it is true. If you are looking for
a theist to prove to you Gods existence then I can tell you that you will be
disappointed. If you are looking for intelligent debate regarding evidence
of a supernatural force involved in the creation of life on earth, then
quite possibly you may find such. One overwhelming theme must be true and
that is intellectual honesty. This is a standard that all of us involved in
science hold to whether we be theist or atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
04 Apr 2006 04:54:30 PM |
|
|
Mr. Bla wrote:
are these 2 variants within a cluster or related viruses?(yes),
This after you hypocritically accuse me of claiming to be the final
authority? Back up your case and I'll buy it, but spittle and bluster
doesn't sell with me.
Call it a sub species if you like but it is definitely not the *same*
as you are insisting. If you want to argue that it is, then you need
to make your case. You have failed to do this so far.
Your taking a definition from Wiki and then leapfrogging from that to
dictating on nothing more than your own authority that it directly
applies to the flu strains under discussion is not going to convince me
unless you back it up or present your viral credentials. Are you a
virologist? I thought not.
Are gorillas and chimpanzees in a cluster of related primates? Yes.
do they
occupy the same ecological niche?(yes)
Do gorillas and chimpanzees occupy the same ecological niche? Yes.
are they so similar (they are
functionally identical) that it is best for them to have the same name?(yes)
Pretty darned near. Does that make gorillas and chimpanzees the same
species? No!
And upon what authority are you claiming that the two strains of virus
are functionally identical? Are you a virologist? I thought not. Flu
viruses may appear very similar - so similar that yoru average
creationist (and they're all average) is prepared to consider them one
"kind", but they're not as any cursory reading of the literature will
confirm. They're quite different in their make-up and significantly
different in their "function".
The new strain doesn't have the same name, unless you're definining
"HIV" as the "name". That's why it's called a new strain. But again
if this is your claim, what is your authority for this?
is this ultimately the same virus within the same niche causing the same
symptoms in the same animals by using the same genes and the same
proteins(yes)
So you say. And *your* qualifications for authoritatively stating this
are? I note your slipping in the word "ultimately". Where does that
appear in any scientific definition of species?
if so then these 2 variants are ONE VIRAL SPECIES.
Well I'm still open. Clearly you've declared it decided based on
nothing more than your own authority - which, again, is what? You seem
to have failed to note that the article specifically said, "...a
genetically distinct variant which appears to have emerged last year,
infecting people in Indonesia."
So the key phrases here are "genetically distinct" (in itself a useable
definition of species in the circumstances), and "in Indonesia",
meaning your claims regarding the "same ecological niche" are voided.
The set "Indonesia" <> the set "hemisphere".
This is exactly what speciation or sub-speciation is - an organism
arising in a small region that is genetically distinct from the parent
population - the two genetic sub-types that the article mentions.
So once again, I'm willing to be pursuaded by a valid argument. The
fact that you read Wiki and then applied it to the avian flu strains on
nothing more than your *belief* isn't valid as far as I'm concerned.
So it appears those who are tasked with viral taxonomy are not that
concerned about asfaics.
Then get one of them to confirm your unsupported assertion and I'll buy
it. But I'm not going to take *your* word for it any more than you are
willing to take mine. Got that?
Humans (homo sapiens) come in various color morphs. I am Caucasian, there
are others who are of African lineage. They produce more melanin in their
skin than I do, and this affects them phenotypically. Are they a different
species mien fuehrer?
Where did I say they were? If you want to take this into making
assinine assertions, putting words into people's mouths and get into
personal insults, you'd better get your armor on. Now step it down
before it's too late. This is just a frigging virus.
[Rest of spittle and rambling flushed]
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Bla" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
04 Apr 2006 10:14:12 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144187670.041389.258430@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Bla wrote:
are these 2 variants within a cluster or related viruses?(yes),
This after you hypocritically accuse me of claiming to be the final
authority? Back up your case and I'll buy it, but spittle and bluster
doesn't sell with me.
Call it a sub species if you like but it is definitely not the *same*
as you are insisting. If you want to argue that it is, then you need
to make your case. You have failed to do this so far.
I will call it what legitimate virologists call it; the same species. Do you
know the difference between genotype and phenotype?
Your taking a definition from Wiki and then leapfrogging from that to
dictating on nothing more than your own authority that it directly
applies to the flu strains under discussion is not going to convince me
unless you back it up or present your viral credentials. Are you a
virologist? I thought not.
I certainly have a much better understanding of virology than you. I deal
with viruses DAILY. You are such an incredible poser. The wiki definition is
taken from a legitimate source. If you think I am going to track down the
original source for someone like yourself who doesn't even understand the
most rudimentry points of genetics then you are as daft as you sound.
Are gorillas and chimpanzees in a cluster of related primates? Yes.
do they
occupy the same ecological niche?(yes)
Do gorillas and chimpanzees occupy the same ecological niche? Yes.
are they so similar (they are
functionally identical) that it is best for them to have the same
name?(yes)
Pretty darned near. Does that make gorillas and chimpanzees the same
species? No!
wow! your ignorance of some of the most basic tenets of taxonomy is
astounding! You cannot compare special differences in animals with that in
viruses. If I would have known that your level of knowledge were sub-high
school I would have given a bit more background data to clarify it for you.
And upon what authority are you claiming that the two strains of virus
are functionally identical? Are you a virologist? I thought not. Flu
viruses may appear very similar - so similar that yoru average
creationist (and they're all average) is prepared to consider them one
"kind", but they're not as any cursory reading of the literature will
confirm. They're quite different in their make-up and significantly
different in their "function".
Your ignorance seems to grow as I read. What trait does the second virus
have which the first didn't? Note that I said trait not gene. Being
genetically different doesn't imply functional difference. In the article
referred to I saw not information referring to any phenotypical difference.
Cursory reading of "the literature" Are you referring to Batman comic books
because I see nothing in your post which leads me to believe you read
anything else
The new strain doesn't have the same name, unless you're definining
"HIV" as the "name". That's why it's called a new strain. But again
if this is your claim, what is your authority for this?
is this ultimately the same virus within the same niche causing the same
symptoms in the same animals by using the same genes and the same
proteins(yes)
So you say. And *your* qualifications for authoritatively stating this
are? I note your slipping in the word "ultimately". Where does that
appear in any scientific definition of species?
if so then these 2 variants are ONE VIRAL SPECIES.
Well I'm still open. Clearly you've declared it decided based on
nothing more than your own authority - which, again, is what? You seem
to have failed to note that the article specifically said, "...a
genetically distinct variant which appears to have emerged last year,
infecting people in Indonesia.
Read the definition which is agreed upon by virologists!
"
So the key phrases here are "genetically distinct" (in itself a useable
definition of species in the circumstances), and "in Indonesia",
meaning your claims regarding the "same ecological niche" are voided.
The set "Indonesia" <> the set "hemisphere".
here is an excellent example of your deception "in itself a useable
definition of species in the circumstances" WHAT? the definition of species
is established
This is exactly what speciation or sub-speciation is - an organism
arising in a small region that is genetically distinct from the parent
population - the two genetic sub-types that the article mentions.
So once again, I'm willing to be pursuaded by a valid argument. The
fact that you read Wiki and then applied it to the avian flu strains on
nothing more than your *belief* isn't valid as far as I'm concerned.
So it appears those who are tasked with viral taxonomy are not that
concerned about asfaics.
Then get one of them to confirm your unsupported assertion and I'll buy
it. But I'm not going to take *your* word for it any more than you are
willing to take mine. Got that?
Humans (homo sapiens) come in various color morphs. I am Caucasian,
there
are others who are of African lineage. They produce more melanin in
their
skin than I do, and this affects them phenotypically. Are they a
different
species mien fuehrer?
Where did I say they were? If you want to take this into making
assinine assertions, putting words into people's mouths and get into
personal insults, you'd better get your armor on. Now step it down
before it's too late. This is just a frigging virus.
[Rest of spittle and rambling flushed]
Budikka
The first time I dealt with you I certainly got the impression you were
arrogant, however I had no idea the depth of your ignorance in biology. I
used to love getting interns like you on my team when I was in residency;
ignorant and arrogant is amazingly dangerous in physicians. Fortunately you
are just a usenet dolt. Get my armor on? what are you rambo too? Get over
yourself.
bla
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
05 Apr 2006 06:32:41 AM |
|
|
"Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in message
news:Dc2dnYvaDIx9qK7ZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144187670.041389.258430@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Bla wrote:
are these 2 variants within a cluster or related viruses?(yes),
This after you hypocritically accuse me of claiming to be the final
authority? Back up your case and I'll buy it, but spittle and bluster
doesn't sell with me.
Call it a sub species if you like but it is definitely not the *same*
as you are insisting. If you want to argue that it is, then you need
to make your case. You have failed to do this so far.
I will call it what legitimate virologists call it; the same species. Do
you
know the difference between genotype and phenotype?
Your taking a definition from Wiki and then leapfrogging from that to
dictating on nothing more than your own authority that it directly
applies to the flu strains under discussion is not going to convince me
unless you back it up or present your viral credentials. Are you a
virologist? I thought not.
I certainly have a much better understanding of virology than you. I deal
with viruses DAILY. You are such an incredible poser. The wiki definition
is
taken from a legitimate source. If you think I am going to track down the
original source for someone like yourself who doesn't even understand the
most rudimentry points of genetics then you are as daft as you sound.
Are gorillas and chimpanzees in a cluster of related primates? Yes.
do they
occupy the same ecological niche?(yes)
Do gorillas and chimpanzees occupy the same ecological niche? Yes.
are they so similar (they are
functionally identical) that it is best for them to have the same
name?(yes)
Pretty darned near. Does that make gorillas and chimpanzees the same
species? No!
wow! your ignorance of some of the most basic tenets of taxonomy is
astounding! You cannot compare special differences in animals with that in
viruses. If I would have known that your level of knowledge were sub-high
school I would have given a bit more background data to clarify it for
you.
Mr Bla
You are discussing with someone who
a) - Thinks a simple plural (meaning 'more than one') means 'all'
b) - thinks that saying: "How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to
detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
Yet cannot point out why.
c) - Does not understand what an abstract noun is.
d) - Predicts that someone she is arguing with will run away and then
promptly runs away herself.
- go easy on her - she gets upset easily...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
05 Apr 2006 10:07:30 PM |
|
|
No Mind, Completely Fucked wrote:
"Mr. Bla" <bla@bla.com> wrote in message
news:Dc2dnYvaDIx9qK7ZRVn-gw@comcast.com...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144187670.041389.258430@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Bla wrote:
are these 2 variants within a cluster or related viruses?(yes),
This after you hypocritically accuse me of claiming to be the final
authority? Back up your case and I'll buy it, but spittle and bluster
doesn't sell with me.
Call it a sub species if you like but it is definitely not the *same*
as you are insisting. If you want to argue that it is, then you need
to make your case. You have failed to do this so far.
I will call it what legitimate virologists call it; the same species. Do
you
know the difference between genotype and phenotype?
Your taking a definition from Wiki and then leapfrogging from that to
dictating on nothing more than your own authority that it directly
applies to the flu strains under discussion is not going to convince me
unless you back it up or present your viral credentials. Are you a
virologist? I thought not.
I certainly have a much better understanding of virology than you. I deal
with viruses DAILY. You are such an incredible poser. The wiki definition
is
taken from a legitimate source. If you think I am going to track down the
original source for someone like yourself who doesn't even understand the
most rudimentry points of genetics then you are as daft as you sound.
Are gorillas and chimpanzees in a cluster of related primates? Yes.
do they
occupy the same ecological niche?(yes)
Do gorillas and chimpanzees occupy the same ecological niche? Yes.
are they so similar (they are
functionally identical) that it is best for them to have the same
name?(yes)
Pretty darned near. Does that make gorillas and chimpanzees the same
species? No!
wow! your ignorance of some of the most basic tenets of taxonomy is
astounding! You cannot compare special differences in animals with that in
viruses. If I would have known that your level of knowledge were sub-high
school I would have given a bit more background data to clarify it for
you.
Mr Bla
You are discussing with someone who
a) - Thinks a simple plural (meaning 'more than one') means 'all'
b) - thinks that saying: "How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to
detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
Yet cannot point out why.
c) - Does not understand what an abstract noun is.
d) - Predicts that someone she is arguing with will run away and then
promptly runs away herself.
- go easy on her - she gets upset easily...
Still waiting on you finding the guts and the sicence to go into the
ring with me. Of course, if you had even a modicum of either, if you
had anything at all to offer, you wouldn't be obsessively-compulsively
indulging yourself in this pathetic juvenile masturbation and whining
because I kicked your ***** seven ways from sundown and never said sorry.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
06 Apr 2006 01:31:15 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144292850.068063.131600@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Still waiting on you finding the guts and the sicence to go into the
ring with me. Of course, if you had even a modicum of either, if you
had anything at all to offer, you wouldn't be obsessively-compulsively
indulging yourself in this pathetic juvenile masturbation and whining
because I kicked your ***** seven ways from sundown and never said sorry.
No you didn't - I was 'in the ring' with you - you predicted I would run
away and then what did you do?
You ran away yourself.
And all because you couldn't answer the question:
Why, specifically, is saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
Inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
- You are still running from it - in between your juvenile ad hominem rants!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
07 Apr 2006 10:55:07 PM |
|
|
Seriously, see a psychiatrist. If you don't get help at Charter House,
get help *somewhere*.
I addressed your issues and set you straight. The fact that you either
couldn't comprehend my responses or didn't like them does not negate
the facts.
The issues were dealt with, and now you've turned into a stalker.
Seriously, get help. get help ASAP, before you try to hurt yourself or
worse, someone else.
And try to find another horse to ride - one that doesn't have "hobby"
in the name. Maybe changing your screen handle will help, because it
is disturbingly appropriate with your current anxiety neuroses.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
08 Apr 2006 05:47:33 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144468507.568098.266840@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Seriously, see a psychiatrist. If you don't get help at Charter House,
get help *somewhere*.
I addressed your issues and set you straight. The fact that you either
couldn't comprehend my responses or didn't like them does not negate
the facts.
The issues were dealt with, and now you've turned into a stalker.
Seriously, get help. get help ASAP, before you try to hurt yourself or
worse, someone else.
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post with a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least supply the
message id.
My recollection is different and I have proof. A link to the thread is
provided below (my nym at the time was Hypno):
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
It will be clear to anyone who follows the thread that the issues were not
addressed - you simply failed to point out an inconsistency you said
existed, resorting instead to ad hominem attacks - you then predicted I
would run away and promptly did so yourself. You have been running ever
since. I've noticed it's a pattern of yours.
I have supplied proof - I am confident that you won't.
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
08 Apr 2006 11:04:24 PM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post with a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least supply the
message id.
What's the point of getting into it *again* when you're too mind-fucked
to grasp it the first few times? The reason I don't address it any
more is that you're the most tedious ***** on Usenet. Get it,
dimwit?
Now please seek help for your pathetic obsession with me before you're
compulsorily assigned to an institution, you psycho *****.
My recollection is different and I have proof.
Like I care about your tedious, vacuous, endless *****. What you
have is sour grapes and all you could make from it is whine.
Contratulations, you've just been mind-fucked.
Again.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
09 Apr 2006 08:18:05 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144555464.089294.160710@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Mindfucked wrote:
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post with
a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least supply
the
message id.
What's the point of getting into it *again* when you're too mind-fucked
to grasp it the first few times? The reason I don't address it any
more is that you're the most tedious ***** on Usenet. Get it,
dimwit?
I have not asked you to get into anything - I have asked you to provide just
ONE link that backs up your claim. You can't -- because your claim is
false.
Now please seek help for your pathetic obsession with me before you're
compulsorily assigned to an institution, you psycho *****.
My recollection is different and I have proof.
Like I care about your tedious, vacuous, endless *****. What you
have is sour grapes and all you could make from it is whine.
Contratulations, you've just been mind-fucked.
I predicted you would not supply proof - The prediction was correct.
I knew you would just blather and run away.
You are unable to provide a SINGLE link to support your claim (It's not as
if I asked for 666 proofs! LOL!)
Again, my proof is here:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
Where is yours - Coward?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
10 Apr 2006 06:10:13 PM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144555464.089294.160710@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Mindfucked wrote:
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post with
a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least supply
the
message id.
What's the point of getting into it *again* when you're too mind-fucked
to grasp it the first few times? The reason I don't address it any
more is that you're the most tedious ***** on Usenet. Get it,
dimwit?
I have not asked you to get into anything
You can't stop yourself. You're obsessed with me. Do you want in my
pants, is that it? Fat chance.
- I have asked you to provide just
ONE link that backs up your claim.
Been there done that - tediously done that - and you didn't like it or
didn't get it and now you're obsessing on it, pretending it wasn't
resolved. Which part of "you don't understand it" is it that you don't
understand? Now for god's sake get a life and quit being a tedious
infant.
You can't -- because your claim is
false.
Do you have *any* idea what kind of a baby you are making yourself out
to be on this world-wide forum?
No, the fact is plain to anyone with half a brain. The fact that you
don't want to take your lumps and are having a childish tantrum about
it is your problem. It's not that it wasn't resolved, it's that you're
a pedantic dimwit who can't stand to have his childish, briandead,
wimpish ***** whipped. Got that? You'd better because this exchange is
over, you monotonous *****.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
11 Apr 2006 04:17:53 AM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144710613.786344.146210@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post
with
a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least
supply
the
message id.
What's the point of getting into it *again* when you're too mind-fucked
to grasp it the first few times? The reason I don't address it any
more is that you're the most tedious ***** on Usenet. Get it,
dimwit?
I have not asked you to get into anything
You can't stop yourself. You're obsessed with me. Do you want in my
pants, is that it?
No thanks - I'll limit myself to fucking your mind rather than your
pus-filled genitalia.
- I have asked you to provide just
ONE link that backs up your claim.
Been there done that - tediously done that - and you didn't like it or
didn't get it and now you're obsessing on it, pretending it wasn't
resolved. Which part of "you don't understand it" is it that you don't
understand? Now for god's sake get a life and quit being a tedious
infant.
If you had you would be happy to post the links that prove it. Instead you
are still equivocating and running. (As I said before. I only want ONE
proof: not 666)
You can't -- because your claim is
false.
Do you have *any* idea what kind of a baby you are making yourself out
to be on this world-wide forum?
I can imagine your perception - I think it will be plain to any lurker that
from your inability/disinclination to prove your claims and your frequent
use of ad hominems instead of addressing the issue that you are the baby.
No, the fact is plain to anyone with half a brain.
There you identify the problem - I have a full brain - that's why you can't
keep up - you have half a brain.
The fact that you
don't want to take your lumps and are having a childish tantrum about
it is your problem. It's not that it wasn't resolved, it's that you're
a pedantic dimwit who can't stand to have his childish, briandead,
wimpish ***** whipped. Got that? You'd better because this exchange is
over, you monotonous *****.
If it was resolved you would be happy to provide the link that proves it.
Your failure to do so and eagerness to snip my proof from follow-ups is
simply additional proof of your impotent position - Keep running.
I predicted you would not supply proof - The prediction was correct.
I knew you would just blather and run away.
You are unable to provide a SINGLE link to support your claim (It's not as
if I asked for 666 proofs! LOL!)
Again, my proof is here:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
For the convenience of those who cannot be bothered to follow the above
link, a brief selection of your various idiocies from it are provided below,
you:
Make the inference that a simple plural (meaning any number in excess of
one) infers or implies 'all'
Suggest that an abstract noun is a 'fact'
Suggest that the abstract noun in question is anything other than
a provisional understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent
understanding is arrived at.
Read and respond to what has been referred to as 'tedious equivocation'
Repeatedly lie about what has and has not said in earlier posts.
Embark on a pathetic ad hominem rant instead of focusing on the matter being
discussed.
Repeatedly applies pressure to her keyboard, despite previously pronouncing
such pressure to be a waste of effort.
Suggest that saying
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
yet are completely unable to state how and why!
One more point:
'*****' is gender specific. I think you are projecting here - girly....
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
11 Apr 2006 04:50:42 PM |
|
|
Mindfucked wrote:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144710613.786344.146210@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
If you addressed the issues, supply the proof - follow up this post
with
a
link to the message wherein you addressed the issues, or at least
supply
the
message id.
What's the point of getting into it *again* when you're too mind-fucked
to grasp it the first few times? The reason I don't address it any
more is that you're the most tedious ***** on Usenet. Get it,
dimwit?
I have not asked you to get into anything
You can't stop yourself. You're obsessed with me. Do you want in my
pants, is that it?
No thanks - I'll limit myself to fucking your mind rather than your
pus-filled genitalia.
- I have asked you to provide just
ONE link that backs up your claim.
Been there done that - tediously done that - and you didn't like it or
didn't get it and now you're obsessing on it, pretending it wasn't
resolved. Which part of "you don't understand it" is it that you don't
understand? Now for god's sake get a life and quit being a tedious
infant.
If you had you would be happy to post the links that prove it. Instead you
are still equivocating and running. (As I said before. I only want ONE
proof: not 666)
You can't -- because your claim is
false.
Do you have *any* idea what kind of a baby you are making yourself out
to be on this world-wide forum?
I can imagine your perception - I think it will be plain to any lurker that
from your inability/disinclination to prove your claims and your frequent
use of ad hominems instead of addressing the issue that you are the baby.
No, the fact is plain to anyone with half a brain.
There you identify the problem - I have a full brain - that's why you can't
keep up - you have half a brain.
The fact that you
don't want to take your lumps and are having a childish tantrum about
it is your problem. It's not that it wasn't resolved, it's that you're
a pedantic dimwit who can't stand to have his childish, briandead,
wimpish ***** whipped. Got that? You'd better because this exchange is
over, you monotonous *****.
If it was resolved you would be happy to provide the link that proves it.
Your failure to do so and eagerness to snip my proof from follow-ups is
simply additional proof of your impotent position - Keep running.
I predicted you would not supply proof - The prediction was correct.
I knew you would just blather and run away.
You are unable to provide a SINGLE link to support your claim (It's not as
if I asked for 666 proofs! LOL!)
Again, my proof is here:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
For the convenience of those who cannot be bothered to follow the above
link, a brief selection of your various idiocies from it are provided below,
you:
Make the inference that a simple plural (meaning any number in excess of
one) infers or implies 'all'
Suggest that an abstract noun is a 'fact'
Suggest that the abstract noun in question is anything other than
a provisional understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent
understanding is arrived at.
Read and respond to what has been referred to as 'tedious equivocation'
Repeatedly lie about what has and has not said in earlier posts.
Embark on a pathetic ad hominem rant instead of focusing on the matter being
discussed.
Repeatedly applies pressure to her keyboard, despite previously pronouncing
such pressure to be a waste of effort.
Suggest that saying
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something concievably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
is inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
yet are completely unable to state how and why!
One more point:
'*****' is gender specific. I think you are projecting here - girly....
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
Now tell me this: What good would it do to go over **PRECISELY THE SAME
TERRITORY** with you that's already been trampled to death seven ways
from sundown when you're too fundamentally fucked-in-the-mind to grasp
it? What good would it do? Answer that and I'll answer your request.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
13 Apr 2006 12:54:29 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144792242.637217.109520@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
'Again' implies that it has happened before - it hasn't.
Now tell me this: What good would it do to go over **PRECISELY THE SAME
TERRITORY** with you that's already been trampled to death seven ways
from sundown when you're too fundamentally fucked-in-the-mind to grasp
it? What good would it do? Answer that and I'll answer your request.
Had you answered the question that you ran away, and I asked the same
question again, I would suggest that reiterating your answer would probably
be pointless and would achieve nothing - however, you have not yet answered
the question therefore your question is invalidated.
Having answered your question I call on you to honor your side of the deal:
The question was:
Why, specifically, is saying:
"How is standing next to a nuclear missile about to detonate like
refusing to take the perceptual leap required to believe that because
something conceivably or demonstrably could have occurred a certain
way, it did happen that way?"
Inconsistent with saying:
"evolution (which is an abstract noun) is a provisional
understanding, subject to revision if and when a more cogent understanding
is arrived at."?
Since you initially ran away without answering the question and have
pointedly neglected to even attempt to answer it ever since, answering the
question would be new territory and therefore would not constitute 'going
over precisely the same territory' as before.
If you insist that the question has already been answered, then please
provide the link or message id that proves it and if it checks out I will be
happy to drop the issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 12:18:48 PM |
|
|
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:e1m442$bp7$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144792242.637217.109520@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
'Again' implies that it has happened before - it hasn't.
It appears that Budikka's assertion that she would not "bleat impotently
with a few purile ad hominems and then run away. - AGAIN." and subsequent
assertion that she had proven me wrong by posting a response (of sorts) was
premature.
She has bleated impotently with a few more purile ad hominems and run away.
Exactly as I predicted.
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SlammerPendragon" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 12:59:23 PM |
|
|
Budikka is a girl?
Mindfucked wrote:
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:e1m442$bp7$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144792242.637217.109520@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
'Again' implies that it has happened before - it hasn't.
It appears that Budikka's assertion that she would not "bleat impotently
with a few purile ad hominems and then run away. - AGAIN." and subsequent
assertion that she had proven me wrong by posting a response (of sorts) was
premature.
She has bleated impotently with a few more purile ad hominems and run away.
Exactly as I predicted.
;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 02:39:52 PM |
|
|
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145037562.988207.157240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Budikka is a girl?
..
Allegedly - The inference being that she sees herself as following in the
footsteps of the warrior queen of the Iceni.
Although as far as I am aware Boudicca did rather more than sling purile and
childish insults and run away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 02:39:52 PM |
|
|
"SlammerPendragon" <JhemHaddar@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145037562.988207.157240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Budikka is a girl?
..
Allegedly - The inference being that she sees herself as following in the
footsteps of the warrior queen of the Iceni.
Although as far as I am aware Boudicca did rather more than sling purile and
childish insults and run away.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindfucked" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 02:44:24 PM |
|
|
SlammerPendragon wrote:
Budikka is a girl?
Allegedly - The inference being that she sees herself as following in
the
footsteps of the warrior queen of the Iceni.
Although as far as I am aware Boudicca did rather more than sling
purile and
childish insults and run away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SlammerPendragon" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
14 Apr 2006 12:59:28 PM |
|
|
Budikka is a girl?
Mindfucked wrote:
"Mindfucked" <mindfuck@bulldoghome.com> wrote in message
news:e1m442$bp7$1@emma.aioe.org...
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144792242.637217.109520@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
'Again' implies that it has happened before - it hasn't.
It appears that Budikka's assertion that she would not "bleat impotently
with a few purile ad hominems and then run away. - AGAIN." and subsequent
assertion that she had proven me wrong by posting a response (of sorts) was
premature.
She has bleated impotently with a few more purile ad hominems and run away.
Exactly as I predicted.
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Avian Flu Speciates - Macroevolution in Action |
13 Apr 2006 06:27:36 PM |
|
|
Fucked-Up-In-The-Head Lied Again:
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1144792242.637217.109520@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Again, I post my proof and invite you to post yours:
http://tinyurl.com/zueb3
I predict you will either ignore it and run away in the hope it doesn't
follow or bleat impotently with a few purile ad hominems and then run
away. - AGAIN.
Happy to prove you wrong - AGAIN.
'Again' implies that it has happened before - it hasn't.
Do you *really* believe, like a little child, that if you blink hard,
reality will go away?
Now tell me this: What good would it do to go over **PRECISELY THE SAME
TERRITORY** with you that's already been trampled to death seven ways
from sundown when you're too fundamentally fucked-in-the-mind to grasp
it? What good would it do? Answer that and I'll answer your request.
Had you answered the question that you ran away, and I asked the same
question again, I would suggest that reiterating your answer would probably
be pointless and would achieve nothing
And indeed, this much we have proven many times, you stupid waste of
skin.
- however, you have not yet answered
the question therefore your question is invalidated.
Thanks for clarifying that, you impotent little turd. Your question
has been answered several times in several ways. The fact that you
didn't like the answer is something to take up with your psychiatrist.
I've repeated this to you endlessly. Which part of it are you too
fundamentally retarded to grasp? Huh? Which part?
I answered you every time when you first started this pathetic spastic
mantra. I gave you the same answer in differents way hoping against
hope that you'd finally get it.
You never did. I gave up. I am not going into all that again just
because you are the most colossal imbecile in creation. Got that? I
don;t owe you anything but abuse and derision. Got that? Now grow up,
you assinine little baby. This is the last time I will waste a message
on you, no matter what you say or do, because you are tedium
personified. Got that? You are an anally retarded monumental (with
the emphasis greatly on mental) jackass. Got that? If not, ask your
kindergarten teacher to explain it to you.
If you chose to ignore what I say and pretend I never whipped your
unbelievably dumb ***** raw, then that's something you need to take up
with your therapist, isn't it? So again, what is the point of
tediously reliving the past?
GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU PATHETIC LITTLE *****. Go back to your crib
and suck on something.
/FX: Sound of toilet flushing/
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
